Durkheim’s solution to what he called anomie was to claim that it
is a moral obligation for people to organize to restructure society into
monopolistic vocational groups, (Ibid., 226, 228) achieving “functional representation” (Ibid., 226.) to alter the division of
labor by shifting from mechanical solidarity to organic solidarity. (Ibid.) The act of organizing would subsume
not merely individual rights, but individual personalities, into the group,
thereby achieving, in Durkheim’s opinion, a natural society. As Schumpeter commented,
“[Durkheim]
realized that individual behavior can never be explained exclusively from the
facts that pertain to the individual himself and that it is necessary to fall
back upon the influences of his social environment. This can be done in many ways. Durkheim’s way was to construct a group mind
— or, since his method was to explain things by means of material about
primitive civilizations, a tribal mind — that feels and thinks and acts as
such: since this idea itself is of romantic origin, we may describe Durkheim’s
position as a sort of positivist romanticism.” (Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, op. cit.,
794.)
 |
| German and Austrian Christian Socialism |
Durkheim’s theory of solidarism found its way quickly into
Catholic social teaching. It was one of
the guiding principles embodied in Das
Katholisch-Soziale Manifest, “The Catholic-Social Manifesto,” a compendium
published in 1932. (Studienrunde
katholischer Soziologen, Katholisch-soziales
Manifest. Mainz: Mathias Grünewald,
1932.) Reiterating Durkheim’s thought, contributors condemned capitalism
on the grounds that “it divided people into antagonistic classes based on
wealth, that it led to the production of goods which lacked cultural value
because the producers were interested only in profit, and that the workers who
produced all the wealth did not receive proper compensation for their efforts.”
(Alfred Diamant, Austrian Catholics and the Social Question, 1918-1933. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida
Press, 1959, 68.)
“The
reform of society according to the Manifest
would have to be based on corporative principles. The corporate order which would result from
this reform would be not only a socioeconomic system, but a moral-religious one
as well. The material basis of that
corporative order would be the principle of Lehen;
that is to say, all property is created by God, man can have it for use only
and must render services to God and the community for this privilege. In this way property would serve its proper
dual purpose: sociocultural as well as individual ends. Nevertheless, the authors of the Manifest conceded that individuals could
have title to property, provided proper safeguards were established.
“Based
on property and organized on the principle of Lehen, economic activity would be governed by the principles of Stand and Beruf. Stand, in brief, was to be the community of those pursuing a common
Beruf (vocation). By pursuing a Beruf under the control of a Stand,
the individual would be assured a standesgemässer
Unterhalt (in effect, a “family wage”).
It would enable him to care for himself and those entrusted to his care,
as well as pursue his cultural goals, namely, family maintenance, education,
security for old age, and others.” (Ibid.)
This is pretty bad, for Durkheim’s solidarism was just a
fancy way of saying socialism. That
being the case, how did it ever become respectable?